I agree there are reasons to criticize the President but the Republicans didn't ever seem to bring them up. It was more like Obama is a socialist; Obama isn't American; Obama is a dictator; Obama is ruining the economy; Obama is a bad Commander and Chief; Obama is going to create death panels and kill your grandma.

And, the Republicans were in such a bubble because they looked at their base and their base ate it up. And, then come election day, they were shocked that their base wasn't big enough to carry the vote and the rest of America realized that Obama is not a socialist; Obam is an American; Obama isn't a dictator; he isn't ruing the economy; he has been an incredible commander and chief and he hasn't created death panels to kill your grandma.

They wasted all their time with we'll prove he is not an American and they looked so foolish doing it; it amazes me that people had any faith in the Republican Party to understand basic reality much less run the country.

But, I will also say that Obama was quite vulnerable. And, if the Republicans had just pulled themselves together and just look reasonable, they really could have won. But, they did not look reasonable; IMHO, especially through the primaries; they looked down-right cartoonish. People were so desperate for Romney to look sensible that his one slightly decent performance in the first debate almost won him the election but he and the rest of the Republican establishment couldn't sustain it.

But, when you look at the election - the themes the Republicans championed - lower taxes, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion - all came out losers.

That is why in the article the editorialist wrote that the critics of Obama got it all wrong. And, they did.

You are naive. Standard Oil is still around today. Just in a different form. It is actually impossible to determine the exact shareholding breakdown of each company, because there are thousands of holding companies that own equity in each, and the wealth is effectively hidden (and shuffled around for accounting purposes). Many of these holding companies are owned by the major banks, which also hold controlling shares in all the Standard Oil companies today. Basically there is no proof that the Rockefellers ever lost control over the oil industry (and we know for a fact they still own a large amount of equity in companies like Exxon-Mobil directly and openly). The more you look into it, the more likely it seems that they do in fact control Standard Oil today the same as they did then. This idea that their fortune was "broken up" by President Roosevelt is pretty laughable.

There was a so-called "investigation" into it while Nelson Rockefeller was in politics, but sufficed to say no proper audit was ever done (kind of like how the Federal Reserve gets to do whatever it wants behind closed doors and never gets audited).

Anyway, you are probably unaware that 2 of the world's largest and most important banks are actually Rockefeller banks. The first is Citibank (which was bought out early on by John D. senior's brother William Rockefeller - later run by the "Stillman" branch of the Rockefeller family), and the second is Chase Bank (now JPMorgan-Chase). David Rockefeller was the CEO of Chase Bank for his whole career, and spent most of his time flying around the world meeting world leaders, often in place of the US president.

Long story short: the Rockefellers are the real power in the US and have been for 100 years. No president gets picked without their approval. If you think otherwise then you have no clue about reality.

And, then come election day, they were shocked that their base wasn't big enough to carry the vote

Given that the popular vote was roughly equal, I'd say that their base could've been big enough to carry the electoral vote had it been more spread out. Their problem was that their base (bases, actually) just wasn't in the right states for them to garner the necessary electoral votes.

By the way, you left out one asinine fear I just heard yesterday but apparently isn't new as some of my friends tell me they've heard the nonsense before: "Obama's going to change the Constitution so he can be president for more than two terms."

You are naive. Standard Oil is still around today. Just in a different form. It is actually impossible to determine the exact shareholding breakdown of each company, because there are thousands of holding companies that own equity in each, and the wealth is effectively hidden (and shuffled around for accounting purposes). Many of these holding companies are owned by the major banks, which also hold controlling shares in all the Standard Oil companies today. Basically there is no proof that the Rockefellers ever lost control over the oil industry (and we know for a fact they still own a large amount of equity in companies like Exxon-Mobil directly and openly). The more you look into it, the more likely it seems that they do in fact control Standard Oil today the same as they did then. This idea that their fortune was "broken up" by President Roosevelt is pretty laughable.

There was a so-called "investigation" into it while Nelson Rockefeller was in politics, but sufficed to say no proper audit was ever done (kind of like how the Federal Reserve gets to do whatever it wants behind closed doors and never gets audited).

Anyway, you are probably unaware that 2 of the world's largest and most important banks are actually Rockefeller banks. The first is Citibank (which was bought out early on by John D. senior's brother William Rockefeller - later run by the "Stillman" branch of the Rockefeller family), and the second is Chase Bank (now JPMorgan-Chase). David Rockefeller was the CEO of Chase Bank for his whole career, and spent most of his time flying around the world meeting world leaders, often in place of the US president.

Long story short: the Rockefellers are the real power in the US and have been for 100 years. No president gets picked without their approval. If you think otherwise then you have no clue about reality.

Many instistutions from the 1800s are still around. JP Morgan and company, etc.

I was addressing your specific point about the power of Rockerfeller. Your post seem to insinuate he ran things and was untouchable and the President was accountable to him.

I am not saying he didn't have immense power at one time for some time but the FACT is that if he had the power you said, his company would not have been broken up. He wouldn't have allowed it. He wouldn't have allowed the various acts like the Sherman Anti Trust acts.

That's my point.

That doesn't address the original point of respect for the office. Again, I'm not saying the common person hasn't had respect for the office. Its traditional that the average person say bad things about any President.

What I am saying and you didn't address it was that elected officials, especially Congressmen and Governors publicly had respect for the White House.

Its unprecedented that a Governor would be pointing her finger in the President's face. Its unprecedented that a member of Congress would yell ot liar at the State of the Union address.

You may agree with it but that's not the point. The point is its considered by EVERYONE that its disrespectful to the office and the unanswered question is with so many bad presidents in the past, much worse than Obama (Nixon, Dubya for example) that they were afforded the respect of the office but Obama hasn't.

This is ridiculous. Presidential candidates regularly trash their rivals and utter pious hyper-nationalist irrelevancies to attain office. When they get there, we are supposed to respect them for the fruits of their psychopathic pursuit of power?

Americans should give themselves to Thanksgiving or Christmas to recover. Then they should resolve to spend the New Year harshly criticizing politician hypocrisy and incompetency, especially if that politician holds a nuclear arsenal and wields the military industrial complex as just another wing of his campaign efforts.

This is ridiculous. Presidential candidates regularly trash their rivals and utter pious hyper-nationalist irrelevancies to attain office. When they get there, we are supposed to respect them for the fruits of their psychopathic pursuit of power?

Americans should give themselves to Thanksgiving or Christmas to recover. Then they should resolve to spend the New Year harshly criticizing politician hypocrisy and incompetency, especially if that politician holds a nuclear arsenal and wields the military industrial complex as just another wing of his campaign efforts.

Obviously campaigns are different but outside the campaign season in the course of daily business. Respect for the office is expected.

but the FACT is that if he had the power you said, his company would not have been broken up. He wouldn't have allowed it. He wouldn't have allowed the various acts like the Sherman Anti Trust acts.

Rockefeller in fact profited immensely from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. As I said, it was an issue he could oppose, but not one that posed a mortal threat to his interests and certainly not one making a bigger stink over. And given the relatively mild opposition it faced, there was undoubtedly some quid pro quo going on between the business leaders and government officials.

If it was some sort of crippling of business we would have seen a mortal death struggle (the way the last time an industry in America was absolutely crippled- Agro-Chattel Slavery), instead you get some cartoons and some vocal protestations, but also a whole lot of cigar smoke and increased value on their shareholdings.

Believing that the Sherman Anti-Trust act was some sort of mortal blow and government smackdown of big business and robber barons is to to fundamentally misunderstand what its effects were and what its purpose was.

Quote:

What I am saying and you didn't address it was that elected officials, especially Congressmen and Governors publicly had respect for the White House.

Its unprecedented that a Governor would be pointing her finger in the President's face. Its unprecedented that a member of Congress would yell ot liar at the State of the Union address

What are you talking about? Lincoln and Grant were ridiculed constantly. Dixiecrat politicians have always spouted off disrespectful language towards "Yankees". Lincoln was so "respected" that half this country rose up in a violent rebellion.

This deep respect for the President phenomenon is largely a creation of the Cold War when it was necessary for our government to appear relatively unified lest the Soviets exploit that. The only other time it was significantly strong was early on with the mythology of the Founding Fathers.

Quote:

is with so many bad presidents in the past, much worse than Obama (Nixon, Dubya for example) that they were afforded the respect of the office but Obama hasn't.

While extreme statements in politics are nothing new, I will agree that the overall level and pervasiveness of things has increased.

It's been building to this. Look at the 90s with the rise of right-wing talk radio, and anti-Clinton smear campaign, which offended many Democrats. Then you get the years of W. where conservatives and religious folk were mocked and they were deeply offended at the disrespect shown to the President. Now you have Obama.

This a reflection on the nation's manners as a whole and a culture of progressively looser morals. This is the genie that has come out of the bottle with "Progress" and "Tolerance". You make it okay for people to watch porn and swear on TV and have shows like South Park, crude movies, Gangsta Rap Albums, Cringe Comedians, Talk Radio & Shock Jocks, Skimpy Clothing and on and on and on, you're going to get increasingly vulgar attitudes towards things that were once held "sacred".

The bottom line is that progressives may cheer when things like the Church and religion are mocked, but they shouldn't whine and moan when that attitude carries over to the President that holds office and supposedly shares their views. This is the bed they made for themselves. You get mocking of the church and such, you get mocking of the President. Duh. You want progress and freedom? You want that uncensored porn and comedy TV shows that push boundaries? You want rap albums not to be banned? You want an end to dress codes? Well you have to take the good with the bad- People are going to disrespect EVERYTHING, not just the stuff you don't like. They will disrespect the things YOU hold in high regard, and they will do it just as viciously as they feel has been done to them.

Those morons in the past may have been wrong about a great many things, but they did have good reasons for being so prudish about manners and etiquette and formality and hierarchy. Congratulations, you just found out why.

Quote:

Obviously campaigns are different but outside the campaign season in the course of daily business. Respect for the office is expected.

When is it not campaign season for politicians? They always have the votes on their mind, especially Representatives who have to stand every 2 years for election.

Rockefeller in fact profited immensely from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. As I said, it was an issue he could oppose, but not one that posed a mortal threat to his interests and certainly not one making a bigger stink over. And given the relatively mild opposition it faced, there was undoubtedly some quid pro quo going on between the business leaders and government officials.

Exactly. This is the problem with debating people like sirius black who simply don't grasp the reality of the world we live in. They buy into generally accepted "truths", which are usually superficial and ridiculous, and neglect to exercise the necessary level of skepticism needed to cut through the bull that they've been fed a steady diet of their entire lives (whether in public schools, universities, the media etc.).

Anyway, there is little doubt that Rockefeller benefited from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It allowed him to lose the epithet "monopolist", while in fact hiding his wealth away in an even more complex series of trusts and holding (shell) companies, while increased government regulations shut down the competition (Standard Oil had actually been quickly losing market share prior to being broken up as a "monopoly"). He, along with a few others, also invented the modern notion of "philanthropy", which in fact is little more than putting one's wealth into a giant tax-exempt fund (of which a negligible amount is actually spent on the poor). This was done a century before Bill Gates and Warren Buffet decided to copy it. Anyone with any understanding of history realizes it is a giant scam.

There is no doubt at all that David Rockefeller and his brothers were the real power in the US in the last century (and continuing to this day). People like Henry Kissinger were little more than Rockefeller representatives placed into the White House to make sure the right policies were followed. You can find clips of Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney each talking about how they get most of their policy directly from the Council on Foreign Relations (chairman: David Rockefeller). President Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission (founder and chairman: David Rockefeller), along with every other member of his administration. All presidents and nearly all influential people in politics are members of either the CFR or the Trilateral Commission (often both). The list really goes on and on and on. If you want to understand what goes on at the highest levels, cherchez le Rockefeller.

Who said anything about Rockerfeller not making money? Of course he did.
Big business ALWAYS make money. You miss the point. You are asserting a point that was not made.
You were addressing Rockerfeller's power. His power would have stopped the act. His power would have let the status quo of his companies remain. The fact that he sitll made money when they were broken up isn't the debate.
The fact that there were laws made designed to stop him is. That is what you are not grasping.
Laws were made in the '80s to stop banking abuse after a big S&L mess. Banks and S&Ls continued to make money and grow.

Again, its a side issue.

Respect for the office is not some post Cold War construct. There has always been a certain protocol.

Governors pointing fingers in the President's face and Congresspersons yelling liar at the state of the union address is so far past the line, I'm shocked you don't see it frankly. Even in something as contentious as the Civil War which is far, far more divisive than anything we have today, that didn't happen. That's the point. Its totally unprecedented.

Who said anything about Rockerfeller not making money? Of course he did.
Big business ALWAYS make money. You miss the point. You are asserting a point that was not made.
You were addressing Rockerfeller's power. His power would have stopped the act. His power would have let the status quo of his companies remain. The fact that he sitll made money when they were broken up isn't the debate.
The fact that there were laws made designed to stop him is. That is what you are not grasping.

No, you are not grasping the point, because you're neither reading nor comprehending what I've written. Rockefeller didn't just profit from Standard Oil being "broken up" (in fact it was not really broken up), he benefited from it in basically every way. He was a widely reviled figure in his time, seen as being a monopolist. The anti-trust act allowed his company to be ostensibly broken up, which took the spotlight off of him. It also resulted in increased regulation being imposed on the industry, which always benefits the largest companies. Where Rockefeller had once been free market, soon after the government stepped in it became his largest customer. The US military remains the largest oil customer in the world to this day, and few people have even heard of David Rockefeller (the most powerful person in the country).

You really need to think about the big picture more and stop taking what you've been taught your whole life for granted. There are several families that operate in secrecy that pretty much own and control the entire country. The government is basically their lapdog. Time to wise up and understand how the game is really played.

Quote:

Laws were made in the '80s to stop banking abuse after a big S&L mess. Banks and S&Ls continued to make money and grow.

Again, its a side issue.

Totally irrelevant. The Federal Reserve System was not affected by those laws.

Quote:

Respect for the office is not some post Cold War construct. There has always been a certain protocol.

Respect for the office is for the proles. The elite who own and control the country are above the office. Rockefeller is above the president (if you don't believe that, you might examine what happened to Kennedy).

Quote:

Governors pointing fingers in the President's face and Congresspersons yelling liar at the state of the union address is so far past the line, I'm shocked you don't see it frankly. Even in something as contentious as the Civil War which is far, far more divisive than anything we have today, that didn't happen. That's the point. Its totally unprecedented.

The president does not deserve our respect. He is basically a joke and an embarrassment. Not only does he not have real power, he is little more than a glorified actor reading from a teleprompter. And before you throw the race card at me, I would say the exact same thing about Clinton (except Clinton was more of a political genius than Obama).

You were addressing Rockerfeller's power. His power would have stopped the act. His power would have let the status quo of his companies remain.

It was in his interests to pretend to be opposed but in the end profit and increase his influence through the breakup.

Quote:

The fact that he sitll made money when they were broken up isn't the debate.

But not only did he just profit, he substantially benefited.

It's like saying the US was powerless over S. Vietnam because their "favorites" the Diem brothers were assassinated. In fact the U.S. Government wanted the Diems out of there, but they couldn't publicly back such a position.

Just because someone says they are against something, doesn't mean they are actually against something.

What, you think politicians are honest and not deceptive?

Quote:

Governors pointing fingers in the President's face and Congresspersons yelling liar at the state of the union address is so far past the line, I'm shocked you don't see it frankly. Even in something as contentious as the Civil War which is far, far more divisive than anything we have today, that didn't happen. That's the point. Its totally unprecedented.

I suppose you think that after Gabby Giffords was shot and all the members of Congress were packing heat that that was the first time arms had ever been brought into the chambers. When Dick Cheney says "bleep you" you suppose that that is an unprecedented level of disrespect. Hint, congressmen have gotten beaten nearly to death with canes by other congressmen while in the Capitol building.

Not too familiar with American politics from 1780~1900 are we?

Calling the President a "Blasphemous agent of miscegenation and a purveyor of heathen immorality" may sound quaint and amusing to us, but that is the 19th Century equivalent of "You Lie" or "Bleep You". Calling someone a coward wasn't just some fodder on talk shows, those were dueling words.

Just read up on Lincoln and how he was treated whenever he visited Gen. McClellan's camp or met with him and how McClellan would openly mock him.